Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/delist/The Entertainer

The Entertainer

 * Original nomination

I find the rendition to be very unencyclopedic. It is very far from the score of the piece, and many liberties were taken with the performance. None of this was discussed in the nomination, yet even the performer of the file admits the alterations and had concerns about its suitability as an audio document. If we are going to promote music recordings, there should be some standards involved in how they are performed. First, I would say that if a recording is for an article about a scored work, the performance should follow the score, and only add things that are commonly added as part of an established tradition for the genre. Second, the performing style should be documented and cited. This implies that there should be scholarship that justifies and explains how the score was interpreted. So using Beethoven's fifth symphony as an example, there might be a performance on original instruments using performance practices from the early 19th century, and/or one on modern instruments using current performance practices, but not a version arranged for jazz band! Someone unfamiliar with "The Entertainer" is not going to be aware of the liberties that were taken (tempos variations, added syncopation, added improvisation, altered harmonizations, etc...) This might be perfectly acceptable as a performance, but not as part of an encyclopedia article. It is analogous to digitally retouching a photograph to change the appearance of a portrait that accompanies a biography, adding wrinkles, changing the hair color and straightening crooked teeth. I'm nominating it for removal of featured status, but I hope there can also be discussion of the broader issue of setting some encyclopedic standards for music files at Wikipedia talk:Featured_sound_candidates. --Sam uel Wan t man 09:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's a link to a midi recording that follows the score. The version at Mutopia also follows the score.  Since that one is already linked from the article there really isn't a need to post a recording at Wikipedia.    --Sam uel Wan t man 23:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Many music articles on Wikipedia have external links to original scores and MIDI files (example articles: The Four Seasons (Vivaldi); and Dieterich Buxtehude). However, it's still benefical for people to upload their own performances to complement the external links. --IE 18:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Performance is one thing, rendition is another. I don't think Wikipedia should be a repository for everyone's creative rendition of musical creations.  That would be a Utube for music and not an encyclopedia.  If you want to document the scholarship behind the ways you varied the performance from the score, I'll reconsider. By the way, It isn't that I don't like your performance, I do. --Sam uel Wan t man 18:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You have raised some good points. You can de-list it.--IE 13:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I reinstate what I said in the discussion; that the file info needs to include exactly what was changed, and as long as it's not too drastic (the equivalent of removing spots from an old photograph), the sound can be promoted to featured status. If not, then the creator may need to be contacted for this information. -- Tewy  03:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Stronly Support the sound's delisting: more significantly than minor melodic embellishments, ragtime doesn't have a swing feel (it's march derived) Leon 06:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This has been listed for about 3 weeks. Can someone please close the discussion? -- Sam uel Wan t man 05:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

MER-C 02:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)